New 2257 Compliance Guide

[pornlaw]

I think that with third party record keepers, this incarnation of 2257 will pass Constitutional review. Again, I am not First Amendment expert, but the government has made it easier to comply. At some point the law will stand and the challenges will stop.

The FSC doesnt have the money and the big players that could challenge it will find it less costly to comply than fight. 2257 isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I think that with third party record keepers, this incarnation of 2257 will pass Constitutional review. Again, I am not First Amendment expert, but the government has made it easier to comply. At some point the law will stand and the challenges will stop.

The FSC doesnt have the money and the big players that could challenge it will find it less costly to comply than fight. 2257 isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

I agree, I don't think 2257 is going away any time soon, but I also don't think the DOJ really wants the law tested in court either.

Free Speech and privacy aside, the whole concept that I have to prove I'm legal rather than the gov't having to prove I'm not is a very dangerous precedent.

The other major issue is that the record keeping requirements are being applied to an industry that doesn't fall within the parameters of "highly regulated". Last I checked there weren't any certifications or licenses required to be an adult webmaster.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Toby

I agree, I don't think 2257 is going away any time soon, but I also don't think the DOJ really wants the law tested in court either.

Free Speech and privacy aside, the whole concept that I have to prove I'm legal rather than the gov't having to prove I'm not is a very dangerous precedent.

The other major issue is that the record keeping requirements are being applied to an industry that doesn't fall within the parameters of "highly regulated". Last I checked there weren't any certifications or licenses required to be an adult webmaster.

I'm with Toby.
I didn't see any category for Virtual Sex, so I have to assume I'm a virtual producer.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I think that with third party record keepers, this incarnation of 2257 will pass Constitutional review. Again, I am not First Amendment expert, but the government has made it easier to comply. At some point the law will stand and the challenges will stop.

The FSC doesnt have the money and the big players that could challenge it will find it less costly to comply than fight. 2257 isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

With all respect, you have a horse in this race that says it BETTER be enforced and be constitutional, or your business model is out the window.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

With all respect, you have a horse in this race that says it BETTER be enforced and be constitutional, or your business model is out the window.

And I am an attorney first and foremost. I will not be retiring off of the income generated by www.2257Safe.com. The reason why I have a horse in this race is because I studied the case law and the new regs and felt that all the challenges were coming to an end and this version would withstand scrunity.

The FSC has no money to fight this and neither does anyone else in the industry.

What are your "feelings" that it would NOT be Constitutional based on ?

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And I am an attorney first and foremost. I will not be retiring off of the income generated by www.2257Safe.com. The reason why I have a horse in this race is because I studied the case law and the new regs and felt that all the challenges were coming to an end and this version would withstand scrunity.

The FSC has no money to fight this and neither does anyone else in the industry.

What are your "feelings" that it would NOT be Constitutional based on ?

I would jokingly say that it fails the stink test when it comes to meeting the stated goal of the act. In my mind, making secondary producers also maintain complete records is a needless duplication on the first part, likely to induce minor errors in the system, and doesn't do anything more to protect the performers than a straight notification from the primary producer. After all, if the primary producer fudged the documents (took a fake driver's license from a girl who is 17 years 11 months), and then sends those documents on to me, there is nothing I can do to stop this horrible exploitation.

Effectively, it creates a undue burden on secondary producers, without doing anything that would promote the government's stated interest in the act.

Further, we get into the situation of third party producers. Let's say I promote a program and use their sponsor content, which they obtained from a producer. So now, the producer is a primary producer, the paysite owner is a secondary producer, and I am, what, a secondary secondary producer? A triplication of records doesn't do a damn thing to assure the models are over 18, certainly no more than having a statement to the effect from the primary producer.

Those who have no control of or no way to check original documents are entirely dependent on others, so keeping those records does nothing to meet the government's intent, nor does it provide any legal coverage for the secondary producer. There is nothing in the act to say what would happen if a primary producer faked the records. Are the secondary producer(s) still on the hook anyway, even though they could do nothing? This is probably the most compelling way to explain the futile nature of retaining records as a secondary producer, because it creates liability without creating benefit.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And I am an attorney first and foremost. I will not be retiring off of the income generated by www.2257Safe.com. The reason why I have a horse in this race is because I studied the case law and the new regs and felt that all the challenges were coming to an end and this version would withstand scrunity.

The FSC has no money to fight this and neither does anyone else in the industry.

What are your "feelings" that it would NOT be Constitutional based on ?

What case law is that? As far as I know there has been no case for a 2257 violation alone where the talent was of age.If Im wrong please correct me.